Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[mralstoner]

But if we're talking about Atheism 2.0 (i.e. humanism) then I'd go with Bart Campolo.

[Whateverist]

Downbeatplumb certainly disagrees with you fuzzy

What?!  Atheists don't all think the same about everything?  That's got to be a weakness - from your point of view.  But it is the dedication to navigating the same conclusions which strips the humanity from too many theists.  (Blessedly not all of them however.)

[Edwardo Piet]

Matt Dillahunty borrows a lot from others. When he speaks of objective morality, for instance, he is just borrowing that from Sam Harris. And when he speaks of Belief in Belief, he is just borrowing that from Daniel Dennett.

And you actually think, these were original thoughts by Harris or Dennett? As usual, Harris presents the obvious as if it was a great revelation. And the Dennett quote fails to impress out of the same reasons.

Truth is, these are obvious conclusions.

The ideas aren't original but the way they are expressed is original.

[Edwardo Piet]

Downbeatplumb certainly disagrees with you fuzzy

What?!  Atheists don't all think the same about everything?  That's got to be a weakness - from your point of view.  But it is the dedication to navigating the same conclusions which strips the humanity from too many theists.  (Blessedly not all of them however.)

Kind of hilarious really considering how no two Christians even seem to believe in the same fucking idea of God.

[Edwardo Piet]

As usual, Harris presents the obvious as if it was a great revelation.

When Harris' speaks of "Objective Morality" via science, and a science of morality, and objective moral truth through naturalism, it's far from obvious. In fact, most people disagree with his position.

[Whateverist]

What?!  Atheists don't all think the same about everything?  That's got to be a weakness - from your point of view.  But it is the dedication to navigating the same conclusions which strips the humanity from too many theists.  (Blessedly not all of them however.)

Kind of hilarious really considering how no two Christians even seem to believe in the same fucking idea of God.

Yep.  Funny how most of them will happily ignore the differences when there are atheists about though.  Then they hold their noses and emphasize the positive.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Matt Dillahunty borrows a lot from others. When he speaks of objective morality, for instance, he is just borrowing that from Sam Harris. And when he speaks of Belief in Belief, he is just borrowing that from Daniel Dennett.

Is that particularly wrong (presuming lack of outright plagiarism), and then how can any of us realistically say anything without borrowing from somebody? We all learn from other people, and we tend to repeat what others have said which impresses us the most.

Dillahunty isn't really in the same position as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or other academics whose careers are defined by the publication of original material anyway. What he does which they do not is make himself available (or find people to take his place) on his show, which has aired every week for at least 18 years. I have to say I'm impressed every time I see him in a one-on-one discussion - he isn't Christopher Hitchens, but he's close to that level with being quick on his feet.

[Edwardo Piet]

All I was saying is I don't find him very original. The DD, SH, RD and CR I think are all more original.

It's just an opinion I'm not really making an argument or providing evidence. That's just the impression I get. I feel like MD just refers to them and others similar.